ستون دقيقة مع ناصر قنديل | توب نيوز 22 08 2014
Written by Nasser Kandil,
The debates took place in the political field and media platforms about the future of the war of Gaza, agree unanimously on that the steadiness of the negotiations in its place reflects a dual impasse.
On one hand, when the resistance factions refused tranquilize according to the content of Egyptian call to stop the fight, without any commitments except entering into the indirect negotiation about the terms of permanent stop fighting and shooting, it presented a main term which its title is the lift of siege and thus it becomes responsible of the blood that fell after that date if it abandons its demands, and in return, the Israeli government seems to be unable to bear the consequences of the admission of lifting the siege, because of the disgracefully symbolic meaning of its defeat.
On the other hand, it is unable to proceed into the war, until the balances of powers change, so it wants to go out, saving its face if the victory exceeds the ability of its army.
The analysts and the brain thinkers talk about military impasse of Israel as a greater than the ability of the government and the military leaders to solve, after it becomes evident, the understanding of the lessons of the July war, which Israel came out of defeated, it spent eight years of preparation to pass what the investigation reports have revealed as points of weakness that caused the defeat. Such funny talk has no place among the facts. The iron dome which the Israelis talk about, as an exceptional genius to deter missiles and prevent their access to sensitive points, it comes out that it is a failure by more than 90% , moreover the ground armies are afflicted with its specific elites as Colonel Gholani, all of these make it a subject of sarcasm in the war of lands after it lost the factor of initiative.
The Israeli debates originate from the admission that Netanyahu has entered Israel into a war of attrition, as Maariv Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz agreed , the search is focusing on an exit of this attrition war, although the accompanying talk was about going to an inclusive ground war, so this search admits of its troubles and difficulties and maybe its impossibility, so it becomes in front two choices, the governmental vacancy despite of its danger or the UN resolution which needs special atmosphere and justifications exceeding this state of war, perhaps, either a ground war and a brutal bombing which surpass the limits of reason just to lure this international solution through a resolution of the Security Council . since the rockets are falling on the cities and Israeli constitutions and the Palestinian blood is abundantly bleeding, so that no one in Israel has the ability to bid to prevent the acceptance and commitment. Or accelerated making of the regional events to prepare a deterioration of the situation in the front of Syria and Lebanon, maybe almost leads to war, this justified the urgent international intervention and the acceptance at the Israeli public opinion level.
Concerning the resistance and the supported powers, there is no evasion of admitting of the danger of the attrition war against the resistance and its people and the available alternatives. The statement of Al Qassam of turning to a war in the heart of these debates has released. The debates continue in the form of (what if ), what if the resistance moves the war abroad, and hits the Israeli interests in Europe and America? What if specific martyrdom processes have been executed in the heart of occupied Palestine outside Gaza? What if the Palestinian resistance attacks the Israeli depth by missiles from the front of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.
In the context of this debate, we ask: Is not the geopolitical actions change the equations, and produce new balances?
Why we do not say, what if Hamas returns to its normal position in the resistance ally, what if we have seen its leaders in Syria? How much change will happen and how much panic will afflict the enemy and its supporters?
To ease the difficulty on the behalf of Hamas, what if we have seen Khaled Meshaal in Beirut with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah ? Is not a specific multi direction message and a change in the rules of conflicts again?
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment